feat(compile): compile w/dependencies and options

[kobyhallx]

Related issue(s)

#952 Allow compilation with dependencies from WASM, #888 (comment)

Resolves #952 Allow compilation with dependencies from WASM

Description

Allows to call compile with a set of dependencies as a second argument. Those dependencies will be later resolved from noir-lang/noir-source-resolver

Summary of changes

crates/wasm/src/lib.rs adds the additional argument which will be iterated over to resolves dependencies. It's equivalent to declaring it in project configuration.

Note: Usage example is demonstrated here
https://github.com/noir-lang/noir-cra/blob/master/src/compile_prove_verify.js#L50

Dependency additions / changes

noirc_driver is now required by wasm

Test additions / changes

N/A

Checklist

• I have tested the changes locally.
• I have formatted the changes with Prettier and/or cargo fmt with default settings.
• I have linked this PR to the issue(s) that it resolves.
• I have reviewed the changes on GitHub, line by line.
• I have ensured all changes are covered in the description.

Documentation needs

• This PR requires documentation updates when merged.

Additional context

[TomAFrench]

I'm not a huge fan of the multiple return value types (single program vs an array of programs) but I don't think it's a blocker.

[kobyhallx]

I'm not a huge fan of the multiple return value types (single program vs an array of programs) but I don't think it's a blocker.

What's the alternative you're thinking about?

Perhaps having overloaded method?

I was going for party with CLI first.

[TomAFrench]

What's the alternative you're thinking about?

My preference is to have separated logic for compiling contracts vs single programs which is then reusable here.
i.e. nargo compile determines whether you want a contract or program, call the relevant function which returns the compiled artifacts (either single or vector) and then writes these to disk. We then reuse the middle step in this crate.

I was going for party with CLI first.

Yep, it matching our implementation in the CLI is why I'm fine with this going through. We can refactor later as we define the compilation code-paths for programs/contracts more.

That said I think that having multiple "return types" is a bit different when writing to the FS rather than passing values back to code.

[kobyhallx]

What's the alternative you're thinking about?

My preference is to have separated logic for compiling contracts vs single programs which is then reusable here. i.e. nargo compile determines whether you want a contract or program, call the relevant function which returns the compiled artifacts (either single or vector) and then writes these to disk. We then reuse the middle step in this crate.

I was going for party with CLI first.

Yep, it matching our implementation in the CLI is why I'm fine with this going through. We can refactor later as we define the compilation code-paths for programs/contracts more.

That said I think that having multiple "return types" is a bit different when writing to the FS rather than passing values back to code.

Agreed, this is still WIP to be addressed.